2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 35

रेल दावा अ धकरण, धानपीठ RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH Coram:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI K. S. AHLUWALIA, CHAIRMAN SHRI MUKESH NIGAM, VICE CHAIRMAN (TECHNICAL)/ALD @ DLI Case No: (OA/II/U/DLI/174/2024)

Date of filing: 19/04/2024 Date of order: 11/02/2025

1. Smt. Nirmal Jain, Wife of Late Sh. Rakesh Jain

2. Sh. Ankush Jain, Son of Late Sh. Rakesh Jain

3. Smt. Pooja Jain, Wife of Sh. Rishi Jain

4. Smt. Neha Jain, Wife of Sh. Shainki Jain S. No. 1 & 2 residents of - H No. 1/6340, First Floor, Gali No. 5, East Rohtash Nagar, North East Delhi,Delhi - 110032.

S. No. 3 resident of - 262, Krishnapuri, Muzaffar Nagar, U.P - 251002.

S. No. 4 resident of - 73/8, Khubbipura, Krishnapuri, Muzaffar Nagar, U.P -

251002.

-Applicants Versus Union of India represented through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

-Respondent Application under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 in respect of claim for compensation for death in an untoward incident.

Value of claim: 12,00,000/-.

Present:

For the applicants: Ms. Priyam Bhandari for Smt. Samta Jain, Learned Counsel For the respondent: Shri Manish Kumar, Learned Counsel through hybrid mode JUDGEMENT By Sh. Mukesh Nigam, Vice-Chairman (Technical)

1. The basic details relating to the accident as contained in the application are listed as under:-

a .	Date of accident	07.01.2024
b.	Person (hereinafter referred to as “Deceased”)	Sh. Rakesh Jain
c.	Relationship of the claimants with the deceased.	Wife & Children
d.	Train involved	Yoga Express, train no. 19031
e.	Place of occurrence of untoward incident Delhi Shahdara railway station
f.	“ ( Untoward incident narrated from Para “2 (a)”: (Reproduced in verbatim) (i)That on 7.1.2024 deceased was travelling from Shahdra Railway Station to Muzaffarnagar Railway Station by Yoga Express train bearing no 19031. The son of the deceased already booked online confirm ticket for his father deceased journey a day before vide PNR no 8860049832 of Rs 182.60. ii) That there was heavy rush in the said train and when deceased was trying to board the train suddenly heavy jerk and jolt was occurred and due to this sudden jerk and jolt deceased slipped from the foot step of the said train and stucked between the train and platform no 3, near Km pole no 5/38-36.”

g.	Written Statement and DRM’s Report	W.S & DRM’s Report filed on 04.07.2024
h.	9 “ Averments in reply in Written Statement: (Para nos. 7 & 9 of Preliminary Objections -Reproduced in verbatim) 7. That in the statement recorded from Shri Abhishek Kudaishya, HQ/HW, Train Manager of Train No. 19031 Yoga Express, states that on January 7, 2024, he was on duty as the Train Manager for Train No. 19031 Yoga Express, traveling from DLI to HW. The train arrived at Delhi Shahdara station at 05:43 hrs and, after its scheduled stop, departed at 05:45 hrs. When the guard brake of his train reached the middle of platform No. 03, some passengers pointed backward and shouted. something he could not understand. He saw a police officer standing on the platform and called out to ask him to look behind. There was no ACP (Alarm Chain Pulling) in his train at Shahdara Railway Station, and apart from this, he had no other information. On January 7, 2024, on platform No. 03 of Shahdara Railway Station, he was informed about the unexpected incident that took place. If he had known about it at the time, he would have taken action as per the rules. The statement and verified records are attached to the DRM Report. .That the statement of CT Aziz Khan was recorded on January 7, 2024, regarding Train No. 19031 Yoga Express at 05:43 PM on Platform No. 03. After the scheduled stop, the train left for its destination. When the guard applied brake, the train reached in the middle of Platform No. 03 and the guard called out from the moving vehicle and asked him to look backward. Upon checking the Delhi side of Platform No. 03, CT Aziz Khan found a person lying injured on the down line at Km No. 05/38-36. He immediately informed NDO and the power cabin. ASI Kulashpal Singh and ASI/GRP/DSA Pawan Singh from Delhi Shahdara reached the spot and took action. During their efforts, it was determined that the person had died at the scene. The deceased was subsequently taken to GTB Hospital for a post-mortem.”
i.	“ Averments in reply in DRM’s Report: (Reproduced in verbatim) न कष ः सम त सा य एवं गवाहो के बयान के आधार पर यह न कष है क दनांक 07.01.2024 को गाड़ी सं. 19031 शाहदरा रेलवे टेशन पर अपने नि चत ठहराव के बाद ंचा तो ग त य के लए रवाना हुई। जब गाड़ी का गाड ेक लेटफाम सं.03 के बीच म पहु क ु छ या य वारा ऑन डयूट गाड को च ला कर पीछे क तरफ ईशारा कर कु छ बता रहे थ े पर तु ऑन डयूट गाड समझ नह सका। ऑन डयूट गाड वारा आवाज लगाकर ऑन डयूट रे.सु.ब. टाफ को पीछे क तरफ देखने बाबत बताया िजस पर रे. सु.ब. शाहदरा वारा मौके पर जाकर चैक कया तो क.मी.सं.05/38-36 डाऊन लाईन पर एक यि त

ंचा। दौराने काय वाह उ त घायल अव था म पड़ा मला। मौके पर रा.रे.पु. टाफ भी पहु घायल यि त मौके पर ह dead हो चुका था। मौके का कोई च मद द गवाह नह इस लए उ त घटना म अ प ट है। मृतक से बरामदा आर त ई- टकट का स यापन कराने पर टकट जार होना पाया गया।”

2. On 11.07.2024, the Bench had noted the following:-

“We find from the records that the written statement along with the report of DRM has already been filed. We direct the Court Master to assign Ex R-1 to the report of DRM. In the DRM Report, it is stated that from the mobile phone of the deceased E-rail ticket bearing PNR No. 8860049832 Ex- BSA to MOZ authorising him to undertake journey in train no.19031 on 07.07.2024 was found and the same was verified to be correct.

Sh. Manish Kumar, counsel for the respondent has very fairly admitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.

After hearing counsel for the parties going through the pleadings and the report of DRM Ex R-1, we formulate following issues for adjudication:-

1) Whether there was any untoward incident as is defined under the provisions of Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989?

2) Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?

3) Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled for any relief and interest as prayed for in the application?

4) Relief if any?”

3. The applicant no. 1 Smt. Nirmal Jain tendered her affidavit as AW/1. She was cross examined and discharged. The applicant had furnished certain documents which are marked Exhibits as under:-

S. No.	Documents	Marked as
1.	Copy of Aadhar Card of Smt. Nirmal Jain	Exhibit A/1
2.	Copy of Aadhar Card of Sh. Ankush Jain	Exhibit A/2
3.	Copy of Aadhar Card of Sh. Rakesh Jain	Exhibit A/3

4. The Respondent had not adduced any oral evidence and had filed its certified DRM’s Report Ex. R/01 along with annexure.

5. Considered the pleadings of both sides, perused all the documents and evidence available on record and heard the submissions made by Ld. Counsels on both sides and the decision on the issues are as under:-

Decision with reasons Issue no. 1

6. A memo was served at 0620 hrs of 07.01.2024 by Dy. Station Suptd., Delhi Shahdara Junction to RPF and GRP at Delhi Shahdara in which it was stated that Head Constable, RPF Shri Aziz Khan had informed that one person from train no. 19031, Yoga Express was injured on platform no. 3 at KM no. 5-38/5-36 and that necessary action may be taken. The memo of the Station Master found an entry in the General Diary maintained at Old Delhi railway station at 0656 hrs of 07.01.2024 vide GD No. 0002A. It is further seen that vide GD entry no. 0012A made at 1106 hrs of 07.01.2024, it was stated that an ambulance was called to attend the deceased but the deceased was declared dead by the Incharge of the ambulance and his body was taken to GTB Hospital and an Aadhar Card was found from his body which helped in identification. It was also mentioned that his son Ankush Jain had had identified him and his relative Shri Anand Jain had informed that the deceased was travelling in seat no. 43 in Sleeper Coach-S4 vide PNR no. 8860049832 in train no. 19031, Yoga Express.

7. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was done between 1230 hrs to 1330 hrs. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased was hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries to chest and long bone produced by blunt force impact.

8. In the Nakal Roznamcha maintained at RPF Post, Shahdara an entry was made at

0930 hrs of 07.01.2024 in which it was stated that a mobile was recovered from the body of the deceased on which an incoming call was received and attended by the Police and the caller had informed that the mobile phone belonged to his father who was travelling from Delhi Shahdara to Muzaffarnagar and whose rail journey ticket was available in the mobile as it had been purchased online.

9. In the DRM report Shri Abhishek Kudesiya had given a statement in which he had stated that on the day of the incident, he was working as Train Manager of train no. 19031, Yoga Express from Delhi Junction to Haridwar Junction and the train had arrived at Delhi Shahdara at 0543 hrs and had left at 0545 hrs and when the train was passing near the middle of platform no. 3, some passengers were indicating towards the Delhi end of the train which he did not understand but he saw a man from the Force and he had informed him that he should see what had happened behind as the train left the station.

10. In the statement given by Shri Aziz Khan, Head Constable, RPF in the DRM’s Report, it was stated that when train no. 19031, Yoga Express left Delhi Shahdara station on the day of the incident, the Guard of the train had asked him to check behind and on checking at platform no. 1 towards the Delhi side, he found the deceased lying on track.

11. The applicant had filed an affidavit in which she had stated that the deceased was traveling from Shahdara to Muzaffarnagar when he accidentally fell from a train at Delhi Shahdara which resulted in his death.

12. The respondent had stated that on the basis of available evidence and RPF investigation report, it was apparent that the deceased was found in an injured condition and had died on the spot. The respondent had stated that the cause of death of the deceased was on account of his own negligence and the Railway was not responsible for self-inflicted injury of the claimant. We are drawn to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v/s Rina Devi (2018 ACJ 1441) where it was held as under:-

“16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree.

Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co Ltd., versus Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.”

13. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and law applicable thereon, it has been proved on record that the deceased died in the incident by falling from the running train which is untoward incident as defined in Section 123(C) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railway Act 1989. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favor of the applicants and against the respondent railway.

Issues no. 2, 3 & 4

14. To prove their relation with the deceased, the applicants had placed on record their Aadhar Cards including the Aadhar Card of the deceased. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said evidence of the applicants to establish their relation with the deceased. The applicants being wife & children of the deceased are dependents of the deceased as defined in the Railway Act 1989. Hence, these issues are also decided in favor of the applicants and against the respondent railway.

15. We may notice that in Geeta Devi Vs Union of India, Hon’ble High Court, Delhi has observed as under: -

“5. As Regards Amendment to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 5.1. Many of the claimants are drawn from rural areas with low levels of literacy and lower levels of making appropriate decision for the use of amounts guaranteed under the awards. There are several instances of their exploitation by middlemen and touts operating in the field. The scope for such exploitation is itself one of the incentives for fomenting bogus claims, fabricated documents and duplicate claims in different Benches of the Tribunal for the same cause of action. The availability of bulk funds in the name of an ill-informed claimant is also a cause for exploitation. A scheme for protection of the amount due to such a claimant is the need of the hour. Earlier, this Court has involved 21 Nationalized Banks in dialogue to evolve a scheme of annuities for disbursement of claims. They have been ordered already to be implemented in this case, vide directions passed on 22nd February, 2019. This scheme as applied to motor accident claims has been approved by the Supreme Court in its order dated 05th March, 2019 in Krishnamurthi v New India Insurance Company, SLP (C) No.31521-31522 of 2017. A statutory rule backing will, therefore, best serve the interest of the litigant in the manner set out below:-

5.2. Insert following Rule 5 after Rule 4:-

Rule 5: Mode of payment--(1) The Tribunal may, in order to protect the sum awarded to the claimant, having due regard to the illiteracy or other disabling factors impairing the judicious use of such sum, issue directions for disbursing the award in terms of annuities, fixed deposits or other suitable mode as shall sub-serve justice.

(2) If any of the claimants is a minor or person of unsound mind, the Tribunal may give liberty to the guardian ad litem to use the interest accruals on the deposit that shall be made during the minority for maintenance.

(3) Nothing in this Rule shall limit the power of the Tribunal to make modifications of the mode of disbursal for reasons to be stated in writing depending on the exigencies requiring liquidation of any corpus created for annuity or premature closure of fixed deposit, for the benefit of the claimant.”

In pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, recently, Government of India has issued a Notification of 3^rd June, 2020 amending Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2020, amending Rule 5 which reads as under: -

“5.Mode of payment

5.1 The Tribunal may, in order to protect the sum awarded to the claimant, having due regard to the illiteracy or other disabling factors impairing the judicious use of such sum, issue directions for disbursing the award in terms of annuities, fixed deposits or other suitable mode as shall subserve justice.

5.2 If any of the claimants is a minor or person of unsound mind, the Tribunal may give liberty to the guardian ad litem to use the interest accruals on the deposit that shall be made during the minority for maintenance.

5.3 Nothing in this Rule shall limit the power of the Tribunal to make modifications of the mode of disbursal for reasons to be stated in writing depending on the exigencies requiring liquidation of any corpus created for annuity or premature closure of fixed deposit, for the benefit of the claimant.

5.4 The orders dated 21^st April, 2017, 24^th May, 2019 and 6^th November, 2019 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 22/2015 and CM Application No. 4501/2015 in Geeta Devi Vs Union of India, relating to disbursement of compensation shall be read as part of this Rule.”

16. This case pertains to untoward incident which occurred after amendment of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules 1990 vide G.S.R No. 1165(E) dated 22.12.2016 which is applicable with effect from 01.01.2017 and the incident date is 07.01.2024, hence the applicants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Only) along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident i.e., 07.01.2024 till date of this Judgment. Therefore, relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi in the case of Geeta Devi (supra) and in pursuance of Rule 5 quoted above, in the present case, the amount of award along with proportionate interest shall be disbursed in the following manner:-